Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'JDB'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Intro & News
    • Please Read Before Posting - NEWBIES START HERE
    • CB gets Press!
    • CreditBoards Success Stories
    • Newbies Section
  • Creditboards Main Forums
    • Credit Forum
    • Medical Billing & Medical Collections
    • Bankruptcy
    • Foreclosures/Loan Modifications
    • Chexsystems Help
    • Debt Consolidation, Counseling and Management
    • Military Credit
    • Canadian Credit
  • Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Automotive Financing
    • Student Loans
    • Business Credit
  • Money Management
    • Money Management
  • Special Topics
    • VISA MC policies
  • Resources
    • Laws Laws Laws
    • Where can I Find?
    • CaseLaw
    • State Laws
    • Debt Collector Hall of Shame
    • Identity Theft
    • CreditPulls Database
    • Databases and Reference
    • Sample Letters
  • Misc.
    • General Discussion

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL






Member Title

  1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/usa-banks-creditcards-probe-idUSL1N0BWM3I20130307 When the banks sell delinquent credit card debt to the JDB's they provide very little information - just a list of accounts, names addresses and SS#'s if they have it. and most times, the accounts are sold " without recourse " - meaning that the banks don't guarantee that this information is correct , and there is no recourse available to the JDB's if the accounts sold were disputed, ID theft or due to additional charges after the consumer paid off the account. The JDB's then use these records to file lawsuits and attach affidavits attesting the bank records they claim to hold. All ties back to the FTC's investigation of the Big Nine JDB's , http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/debtbuyer.shtm and class action lawsuits against Midland robo signing http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=465175&hl= and class action lawsuits against LVNV funding where 10's of thousands of lawsuits were dismissed. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-09-09/business/bs-bz-debtors-settlement-lvnv-20110909_1_debt-collection-settlement-forgives
  2. READ ALL ABOUT IT http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/debt-buyer-faces-fine-and-loss-of-thousands-of-court-judgments/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
  3. Looking for some advice on dealing with this collection agency Portfolio Recovery Associates. Same old story, I went thru some very hard times about 4 years ago and now im dealing with the consequences. Recently Ive been contacted by Portfolio Recovery Associates regarding TWO accounts that they have purchased and are now trying to contact me about settling debt. One of the accounts is an old GE Bank Credit Card (Walmart) that is out of the Statue of Limitations in my state. (im in Texas and I believe the SOL is 4 years on debt.) The letter that I received regarding that account is has this text written on the bottom: "Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it and we will not report it to any credit reporting agency." The letter also states that they bought the debt from "ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC", so I assume it should be out of the SOL. The most recent letter has stated that I owe around $650 but they will settle for 3 options: 1.) I pay $251.00 straight out 2.) I oay $47.00 for 6 months 3.) I pay $26.00 for 12 months Since this debt is so old, and isnt being reported to credit agencies then whats the point of settling with them? And If I remember correctly, the credit line on that card was only $200 or something. My question on this one is, how can I figure out if it is actually out of SOL and if it is then how can I stop them from contacting me about it or have them shut down that account. Debt Validation? Cease & Desist Communications on this account? I have read that a cease & desist increases the probability of getting sued but since the letter states they CANT sue me then would it hurt to send the C&D to shut them up on that account? Now, the second account that they have is an old Capital One Bank credit card account which according to the mail document was purchased directly from Capital One. This account was purchased in 2013 and from one brief conversation I had with one of the reps on the phone, they said the last activity was from 2011. I have since ignored all calls as they have increased after accidentally speaking to them once. I am unsure if this is outside the statute of limitations since I dont recall when I ceased to make payments and it got charged off. Unless it just now was charged off and Portfolio Recovery Associates just now got their hands on it. I am currently in the process of obtaining my credit report to see whats actually there and if both of these debts are reporting. On this account, they claim I owe something between $800-$1000 but I know for sure that this card was another low credit line of something like $250. A letter states I owe $850 but on the phone the rep said something like $1100. It seems they are increasing the amount due with every communication. My question on this one is how can I clarify what exactly I should owe, whether or not it is within the SOL, and whether I should make a deal with them. Also, should I start this off with a Debt Validation Letter and just go from there? Is the probability of being sued for this one higher since it may not be out of SOL yet? Its a relatively low amount so I dont see the need for getting lawyers involved. Even though they purchased the debt in 2013, I am almost certain that its been charged off since at least 2011. I have not yet received the "deal" letter on this account as they were just able to get ahold of me via phone. Ive been receiving random letters from CA's but I usually read them over quick and throw them away. They somehow dug up my cell number so now the calls are coming in more and more frequently. So thats the collection agency drama, please send any helpful advice. This is just the beginning of fixing the debt hole that I got into back when i fell on hard times but hopefully with some helpful tips and tricks it will get all figured out. I will continue to update this post as I move through the processes of dealing with all of this so hopefully it will help someone else who may be in the same issue. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!
  4. Oh Joy! DH received letter from Revenue Recovery Service that they have purchased a debt (1 full year beyond SOL) and he has 10 days to remit payment - or "we will have no alternative but to commence legal action against you." Rubs hands together - I am having fun counting the VIOLATIONS against this scumbag JDB. Here's my list so far: 1) Threatening legal action when a). the debt is beyond SOL, . Scumbag is not licensed within the State of Florida (where we live). So this is a violation of FDCPA and a violation of FCCPA - which would be $1k for each contact or call. (right now the tally is $2k). 2) Threatening to increase charges - "If we do not receive said payment, we will have not alternative but to commence legal action against you which will result in additional costs and expense to you. The legal remedies call for treble damages of your outstanding debt plus attorney fees and court costs. If you wish to discus an alternative payment proposal you may contact our office." Does this constitute an additional violation? This is the initial communication - that they have acquired the debt and the letter demands money within 10 calendar days or the legal action. Isn't that a violation right there? They do provide the verification notice but it is in smaller font and seems to be contradicted by the 10 calendar days demand for payment. I plan to send a letter of dispute. Is there any other obligation on my part? When can I "commence" legal action? If they don't respond?
  5. Okay...I'm not sure what to make of this. I need some pro help. I just had from a JDB who made ONE call to me this week, on which I immediately filed complaints with CFPB, FTC and FCC -- it was a robo-call for a fictitious payday loan. I get a new scam operation calling me every month, and I'm not playing around anymore. I have an attorney filing suit on 2 in GA this week, and this one is in the Buffalo, NY area...imagine that. In my CFPB complaint, where it asks what a "fair resolution" would be -- I said I would accept $1000 from the CA for this violation of the FDCPA and not charge them for the TCPA violation. I added that this would preclude them from selling this BS to any other entity. Their Compliance Manager just called me to "ACCEPT MY OFFER" and pay me $1000 -- their attorney is sending the agreement overnight as soon as the the docs are finalized today. HUH...?!
  6. This is a long read but well worth it. It illuminates the disgusting tactics JDB's stoop to to earn their significant profits. It also points to serious deficits in consumer's privacy and integrity of credit data - data which is so often passed around from thug to thug as they leach off the least informed consumer. Very sad. Should be required reading for anyone involved in credit repair. The article was in the NYT Magazine. It's entitled, Paper Boys: Inside the Dark, Labrinthine, and Extremely Lucrative World of Consumer Debt Collection. The author is Jake Halpern. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/magazine/bad-paper-debt-collector.html?_r=0 Apologies in advance if this has already been posted. I did a search and could not find it!
  7. Sorry if this is a repost, but I didn't see it here. Debt Collectors’ Jobs Just Got Harder I guess, for example, old statements are fine, but the CA or JDB can't just give you a number for the amount owed.
  8. I am not talking about OC's that have lawyers or inhouse collectors, perhaps working on a percentage... I am talking about a charged off OC balance with -0- due and owing that has totally sold their position in the outstanding amount... Anybody know about this?Thanks if so...
  9. this is over a year old, don't remember it posted to CB... The FTC investigated 9 debt buyers and this was the result. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/structure-practices-debt-buying-industry
  10. I received a letter from Midland Credit Mgmt stating they are "the new owner" of xxx account and that MCM, "a debt collection company, is now the servicer of this obligation." It lists OC, original acct. #, MCM acct # and current balance. It is mine. I've read quite a bit and not sure if they technically have to send my anything else under the FDCPA, but will this work as a validation letter? Is there anything else I can/should do? To whom it may concern: In regard to the above referenced account, please be advised I dispute your claims and request full and complete validation per the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and all applicable state laws. I also request that all communications be by U.S. Mail, as it is inconvenient for me to receive phone calls at home or at work. Sincerely, ________________ (no signature)
  11. We sent a dispute to MCM for a time barred acct on DH's CR. Our dispute letter cited state law about time barred debt, told them to stop contacting us and to delete from CR. They responded with a bunch of old cc statements and a letter requesting payment. They also indicated they would no longer contact us as we requested unless it was to further respond to our dispute. Nowhere in the letter did they indicate the debt was time barred and that they would not sue. Is this a violation of the FDCPA? We live in FL. Thanks.
  12. I copied this from Insid(ious)ARM -- looks like this fella had a run-in with his comeuppance. A California office of the U.S. Justice Department announced Friday that a debt buyer was arrested on bank fraud charges related to a line of credit from a bank used to fund debt purchases. The arrest was made after an investigation by the FBI. Michael T. Sahlbach of Granite Bay, Calif. was arrested Friday for six counts of bank and wire fraud, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced on behalf of the DOJ office for the Eastern District of California. A federal grand jury returned the sealed indictment Thursday; it was unsealed after his arrest. According to court documents, Sahlbach owned and operated a debt collection business, National Credit Acceptance Inc., that purchases pools of consumer debts from other companies at a discount, and then attempts to collect on these debts from the consumer. In order to purchase the debt pools, Sahlbach opened a $25 million line of credit with First Bank to help support his business. The credit agreement required that if NCA wanted to buy a debt pool, it would provide 15 percent of the cost of that pool and 85 percent would be financed by First Bank. According to the indictment, on several occasions from September to December of 2008, Sahlbach represented to First Bank that he had contracted with Lender Exchange to purchase debt pools. As a result of those representations, First Bank wired a total of $6.8 million to Lender Exchange. Sahlbach had not told First Bank that he actually controlled Lender Exchange. In fact, in August 2008, he had registered it with the California Secretary of State using the alias M. Hansen and used the address of a parking garage on Capitol Mall. If First Bank had known Sahlbach controlled Lender Exchange, it would not have extended credit. The indictment alleges that Sahbach did not use the money to purchase debt pools from Lender Exchange, but transferred the funds to other bank accounts he controlled. He used those funds for business expenses and to provide the 15 percent contribution to receive additional funds from First Bank. Shortly after obtaining the final disbursement from First Bank, Sahlbach defaulted on the entire line of credit with First Bank. If convicted, Sahlbach faces a maximum statutory penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Assistant United States Attorney Jared C. Dolan is prosecuting the case.
  13. Ooh, look out JDBs http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/nyregion/top-state-judge-tightens-rules-on-debt-collection.html?_r=1
  14. Hi All, I just received a BBB response from a JDB that has been reporting false payments on my DH's report - I didn't go into the other no-no's they are reporting; I'll save those for a later date. I uploaded the release (printed "signature" not actually signed) with printed pages of the CR's only containing their info. The pages that contained other TL's were either cut off the page or blacked out. They requested copies of the credit reports.... now, I wasn't comfortable sending them full reports - it's none of their business what the rest of his TL's are. My question is... do they actually need full copies? My just sending the page, it doesn't show which CRA it is. Just one one which has the web address it was printed from. Also, how do I know those documents uploaded correctly? I didn't receive a confirmation they were uploaded, nor do I see them in "All attachments for this complaint" area. First time using BBB to file a complaint so I am unsure. Oh, and here is part of the response from the JDB (PRA)... PRA furnishes account information to the national credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, in accordance with Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Appendix A to Part 660, Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, and the Consumer Data Industry Association's Credit Reporting Resource Guide. We do not "report false payments." What a crock..."We do not report false payments" Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
  15. Hi All, Thanks for reading my thread, I hope I am not over doing it by posting too many threads ( this is my third one) . Ok here is my dilemma, 1. I had a JDB pop up on my CR, sent Validation they responded. In a nutshell can't validate will request for removal with CRA and they will remove my info from their database. A month to date, still on my CR . Last week Thursday called the CRA told them what has transpired, I gave info over the phone, name of the reporting CA, date of letter the CA sent it to me, and the name of the person who signed it ( which was a manager). Was told to mail it. I did the same day I am now kicking myself in the butt cause I sent it regular snail mail. I was too anxious. As of today the neg acct. is still there and it is not even marked as disputed! Is this a violation? On both parties? 2. Since I had 2 CA reporting the same debt I requested validation from both, last one Diversified has yet to answer my letter, not only that, they are reporting wrong dates, acct term and had the nerve to report one month as no information to report?? They haven't even reported to the CRA its in dispute... So do I: a. send a letter YES CMRR, to the CRA stating that they failed to validate debt, send a copy of the green card and the tracking confirmation from USPS? b. Do the above AND give a list of all the errors that the CR is reporting about this acct ( I read here that doing this will cause them to have to delete it cause its so many listed errors they wouldn't know what to chose from:http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=313560 ) c. or just send a letter stating that the CRA is reporting inaccurate information. List all the errors and demand it be deleted. 3. Will freezing all CR's look odd while disputing? I was able to get my unsecure cc so I am happy for now, I don't want any surprise I ran your credit report like Lexis-Nexis has done to me! 4. I also heard that if a CA do not mark the acct on our credit report as a dispute by the consumer once you have requested validation them it is a violation...is this correct? If so can any one site this violation? 5. I am open to reading any threads that may educate me and help me please post them!!!!! I thank you all for your help!
  16. Background: All debts are out of SOL. All should fall off within the next year. I have around 15-20 negative trade lines, most are From major credit issuers (OC) plus corresponding JDBS ( the nasty ones). I've never disputed anything. My understanding is that I should start with a basic letter to the CRAs asking for verification? The JDBs list accounts that I'm really not familiar with but I guess that since they are so old, the company names have changed? I don't want to say "not mine" because I have no idea and I don't want a fraud alert. Can I say I don't recognize them which is true? Or is that problematic? I saw Whychats basic dispute and Breeze's sample CRA letters. I guess I'm a bit confused. I think I've read too much at this point and it gets a bit overwhelming. I think I need to send basic letters to the CRAs, Certified mail, stating: I'm not familiar with this creditor, can you please investigate and verify that it is really my account? Then, if it comes back verified (all JDBs update every month) then send letters to the JDBs? Then a follow-up to the CRAs? Am I correct that Whychat's SOL letters are different than the 1 - 2 punch? I don't think I can use the 1-2 punch because I haven't received any recent dunning letters with the 30 day notice. Is that right? I'm hoping to pick off a few baddies and then, hopefully by that time, the 7 year period will be up. Please help me out here. I'm feeling so frustrated at this point. I'm not sure what to do.
  17. Has anyone ever registered online through Cavalry Portfolio Service's website? It tells me it cannot find the account either by my SS#, the account number, or their case #. My most recent CMRRR was received by them on 7/15. Maybe they gave up, although account has not been deleted from CRs yet? Thoughts?
  18. California SB 233 passed the Assembly Monday on a 72-0 vote. In late May, the bill passed the state’s Senate on a 36-0 unanimous vote. The measure now goes to California Governor Jerry Brown for signature. Takes affect on January 1, 2014. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_233_bill_20130702_enrolled.pdf
  19. Is there any difference between an OPEN COLLECTION and a CLOSED COLLECTION? As noted in other posts, have been fighting Cavalry over a collection. On Equifax, the status changed from open to closed, but all the other same information remains. No apparent change in FICO, so wondering if changing it to closed helps them from a dispute standpoint, or why they would have changed it. Any ideas?
  20. So as discussed in a previous post, a mysterious collection account with Cavalry Portfolio Services popped up on credit report a few weeks ago. I sent a DV, CMRRR this week. I was online checking the status on the USPS website, and it says this: Your item was returned to the sender at 8:25 am on June 19, 2013 in HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 because the forwarding order for this address is no longer valid. So now what do I do? This is the address which shows on the credit reports from Equifax and Experian. The collection is not on Trans Union. How do I contact them to try to get this resolved or removed? I am certainly NOT contacting them by phone. Do they not have to have some sort of legal mailing address on file with the credit bureaus where I can contact them?
  21. So, as some of you may know from previous posts, had a collection account pop up a month or so ago. It was nothing I recognized, and nothing that showed on credit report. I disputed it with Equifax. Well guess what? Got those results today: >>> We have researched the collection account. Account # - 16391109 The results are: If you have additional questions about this item please contact: If you have additional questions about this item please contact: If you have additional questions about this item please contact: If you have additional questions about this item please contact: If you have additional questions about this item please contact: Cavalry Portfolio Services, 7 Skyline Dr Ste 3, Hawthorne NY 10532-2162 So apparently the Equifax solution to my dispute (whether on their own of with the assistance of Cavalry) is to respond to my dispute with the contact information for the collection agency? As I am fairly new at this, perhaps someone can shed some light on this. Does Equifax not have to verify the account with the OC, CA, or JDB when I dispute it? Is what they did enough? Is providing the same message 5 times over, along with an address I already had, considered an acceptable response from the JDB to the dispute? Am I correct that I am within my rights to require Equifax to clarify that the account was verified, who verified it, the manner of verification, etc? Thanks!
  22. If you are in the process of paying off your debt...pulled CR...check...verified with CRAs...check...validated with JDB...check...got some removed...check but not the original creditors....and now I'm stuck. My question is...if you want to pay off your debts should you go through the original creditors or JDB? If you go through the JDB the debt will still be there from the OC, correct? So why don't people suggest dealing with the OCs to begin with? Hopefullyk, that doesn't sound confusing!
  23. Hi, I've been lurking on this site for months but this is my first post. I ran into financial problems in 2006-2007 and ended up defaulting on my credit cards. I am in, and have always been in California so my understanding is that I'm well outside of the SOL. All my baddies are due to fall off my credit report between 9/2013 and 8/2014 according to my free annual credit report so I had pretty much decided to let nature take its course. All of my charge offs have been purchased by LVNV, Midland or Pinnacle which, from what I've read here, are really difficult to deal with. Like everyone else, they report as factoring companies, open and they update every month. But today I received a notice from Northland that I had 30 days to dispute the Pinnacle item. Northland is not reporting on my credit report but both Pinnacle and the OC are. Both Pinnacle and the OC show DOFD as between 6/2007 and 8/2007 depending on the CRA. The dunning letter I received today does not include the language about "we will not sue you for this debt." Isn't this required if the debt is out of SOL? Furthermore, they did not put my name on the notice. It is addressed to "???" With a code following and then my address. The letter starts "Dear ???" My biggest fear is that they will try to sue me and I won't find out about it and have the chance to offer the SOL as a defense. I'm guessing I should DV them but should I tell them my name? Should I ask for not only validation but also point out that I'm out of SOL? Seems like that would be admitting that it's mine. I have no proof that they re-aged except they didn't put the disclosure language. I really appreciate any help or advice.
  24. My GF received a letter today from Cavalry Portfolio Services regarding an old Old Navy account they purchased from GECRB. Or maybe they purchased it from someone else, but GECRB was OC. The collection also hit her most recent EQ and EX reports, but not TU. The letter was sent to an old address (we still own the home, just no longer live there) and was addressed to her married name (divorced several years). The letter states that due to the age of the debt, they will not sue. I think Ohio (where she lived at the time) has a long SOL on debts, but this is 5 years old or more, hard to tell as account itself is no longer on credit reports. Both her scores fell 40 points when this hit the files. I want to make sure we do exactly the right thing, as neither of us has much experience with this type of issue. Appreciate the help!
  25. synopsis (1) Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation. This bill would enact the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, which would regulate the activities of a person or entity that has bought charged-off consumer loans debt, as defined, for collection purposes and the circumstances pursuant to which the person may bring suit. The bill would apply to consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer, as defined, from making any written statement in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses information that the debt buyer is the sole owner or is authorized to assert the rights of all owners of the specific debt at issue, the debt balance, as specified, and the name and address of the creditor at the time the debt was charged off, among other things. The bill would require the debt buyer to make certain documents available to the debtor, without charge, upon receipt of a request, within 15 days. The bill would require that a specified notice be included with the debt buyer’s first written communication with the debtor. The bill would require all settlement agreements between a debt buyer and a debtor to be documented in open court or otherwise in writing and would require a debt buyer who receives a payment on a debt to provide a receipt or statement containing certain information. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer from initiating a suit to collect a debt if the statute of limitations on the cause of action has expired. The bill would prescribe penalties for each violation of the act and would provide that its provisions may not be waived. The bill would require a debt buyer bringing an action on consumer debt to include certain information in his or her complaint. The bill would prohibit an entry of judgment in favor of a plaintiff debt buyer unless business records authenticated through a sworn declaration and relating to the debt and ownership of it, among other things, are submitted by the debt buyer to the court, and would permit a court to dismiss a debt buyer’s action to collect with prejudice if this information is not provided or if the debt buyer fails to appear or is not prepared on the date scheduled for trial. (2) Existing law establishes a process for the enforcement of money judgments and requires a levying officer to provide certain documents and information to a judgment debtor and to a designated employer in connection with wage garnishment. Existing law permits a process server also to serve an earnings withholding order on an employer and requires that the process server also serve certain documents at this time. Existing law requires an employer who is served with an earnings withholding order to provide certain documents to an employee who is a judgment debtor. This bill would require, in the circumstances described above, that a copy of the form that the judgment debtor may use to make a claim of exemption and a copy of the form used to provide a financial statement also be provided. full bill at link http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB233
  • Create New...

Important Information